KU MU T-Shirt war

[Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan]

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

If he wears that shirt in public, and the Star takes a photo of it at Arrowhead and publishes it in the paper the next day, is that a copyright infringement?

Nope, although if they take his picture, they are supposed to get a release allowing them to use the picture. Or at least, they did when I was doing reporting (pictures of the players is considered fair use due to the fact that "they're performing for a paying audience" - pictures of the fans used to require a release since the paper was using their images to make money for itself. Otherwise they could be sued. Don't know how much that's followed these days, I don't keep up with journalism law since I don't work as a journalist these days.)

Copyright law is if you create it, you own it for life + 70 years (IIRC). Still, I think the initial post might have fallen under the "fair use" clause since it was originally posted for the purposes of review. It's the same way that newspapers, magazines and web sites can post "short excerpts" of novels and pictures of the cover. It, in effect is free advertising.

However, for example, if an author believes a web site has posted more than is necessary for review purposes (like say the first three chapters of their book - or the big reveal at the end of a thriller), they can (and should) approach the site and ask them to redact or remove the work. If they refuse, that's usually where lawyers make their money.

Now, could Kyle have approached the moderators in a better manner than coming out swinging the lawyer stick. Absolutely. It was a pretty clueless move when it could have been handled more amicably.

But, if he does own the copyright, (and unless someone has evidence stating otherwise, why would he open himself up for this if he didn't?), he has the right to ask for the photographs to be removed. And posting his personal information on a BB like this is pretty bush league in my opinion.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan

Nope, although if they take his picture, they are supposed to get a release allowing them to use the picture. Or at least, they did when I was doing reporting (pictures of the players is considered fair use due to the fact that "they're performing for a paying audience" - pictures of the fans used to require a release since the paper was using their images to make money for itself. Otherwise they could be sued. Don't know how much that's followed these days, I don't keep up with journalism law since I don't work as a journalist these days.)

Copyright law is if you create it, you own it for life + 70 years (IIRC). Still, I think the initial post might have fallen under the "fair use" clause since it was originally posted for the purposes of review. It's the same way that newspapers, magazines and web sites can post "short excerpts" of novels and pictures of the cover. It, in effect is free advertising.

However, for example, if an author believes a web site has posted more than is necessary for review purposes (like say the first three chapters of their book - or the big reveal at the end of a thriller), they can (and should) approach the site and ask them to redact or remove the work. If they refuse, that's usually where lawyers make their money.

Now, could Kyle have approached the moderators in a better manner than coming out swinging the lawyer stick. Absolutely. It was a pretty clueless move when it could have been handled more amicably.

But, if he does own the copyright, (and unless someone has evidence stating otherwise, why would he open himself up for this if he didn't?), he has the right to ask for the photographs to be removed. And posting his personal information on a BB like this is pretty bush league in my opinion.

Eh, kind of. The picture of the person wasn't a problem. If you could see the person? That is another story. Since the person is not uniquely identifiable a release is not in order. Kind of like taking a picture of a crowd. You can't get model releases for the whole group of people, nobody can know who anyone is. Taking a picture of the shirt itself shouldn't be a problem unless that person has a reasonable expectation to privacy, which doesn't seem to be the case. But all of that and a lot of what you wrote has to do with the liability of the photographer. Which really isn't up for debate.

Now. Kyle being the owner of the picture and it being posted is another story. He hasn't shown that he has any right to it. Maybe he does? I don't know. Show me.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan

And posting his personal information on a BB like this is pretty bush league in my opinion.

Why? He is not breaking any laws by posting that information. Email communications are not protected.

[bobbything]

I didn't read every single page of this, however, I got the Cliff's Notes. And maybe someone already mentioned this...

What I find ironic is that this guy is quoting copyright laws, yet there's no possible way, no way on earth, he got licensing from MU to use their logo on that shirt.

[siberian khatru]

Originally Posted by bobbything

I didn't read every single page of this, however, I got the Cliff's Notes. And maybe someone already mentioned this...

What I find ironic is that this guy is quoting copyright laws, yet there's no possible way, no way on earth, he got licensing from MU to use their logo on that shirt.

It was brought up, but it's worth repeating.

And in that case, he IS profiting from it, unlike simply posting the pic of the shirt here, which at worst is free advertising for him. Indeed, I sent that story to my Dad, and he called and said he wanted one of those shirts. But when I told him how Kyle had acted here, he wasn't interested anymore.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Why? He is not breaking any laws by posting that information. Email communications are not protected.

And much like American Hero before him, this guy was begging for abuse.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan

Nope, although if they take his picture, they are supposed to get a release allowing them to use the picture. Or at least, they did when I was doing reporting (pictures of the players is considered fair use due to the fact that "they're performing for a paying audience" - pictures of the fans used to require a release since the paper was using their images to make money for itself. Otherwise they could be sued. Don't know how much that's followed these days, I don't keep up with journalism law since I don't work as a journalist these days.)

Copyright law is if you create it, you own it for life + 70 years (IIRC). Still, I think the initial post might have fallen under the "fair use" clause since it was originally posted for the purposes of review. It's the same way that newspapers, magazines and web sites can post "short excerpts" of novels and pictures of the cover. It, in effect is free advertising.

However, for example, if an author believes a web site has posted more than is necessary for review purposes (like say the first three chapters of their book - or the big reveal at the end of a thriller), they can (and should) approach the site and ask them to redact or remove the work. If they refuse, that's usually where lawyers make their money.

Now, could Kyle have approached the moderators in a better manner than coming out swinging the lawyer stick. Absolutely. It was a pretty clueless move when it could have been handled more amicably.

But, if he does own the copyright, (and unless someone has evidence stating otherwise, why would he open himself up for this if he didn't?), he has the right to ask for the photographs to be removed. And posting his personal information on a BB like this is pretty bush league in my opinion.

Evidence as in there is no way in hell he could have taken a picture of the Lawrence on the shirt, or the evidence that he does not hold copyright of the MU logo he used on the shirt..